In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHR Dialogue: The Maritimes and Confederation: A Reassessment PHILLIP BUCKNER ANUMBER OF YEARS AGO ErnieForbes inanimportant articlechallenged thestereotype of Maritimeconservatism andattempted toshow howit haddistortedthewayin whichthehistoryof theMaritimeshasbeen portrayed inthepost-Confederation period.•Yetitcanbearguedthat thisstereotype hasalsoinfluencedour interpretationof the preConfederation erainavarietyofways. Nowhereisthismoretruethan instudies oftheroleoftheregioninthemakingofConfederation. The failureof the Maritimecolonies to respondenthusiastically to the Canadian initiative for Confederation in the • 86os has come to be seen asyetanotherexample of theirinherentconservatism. The impression thatemerges from theliteratureisofaseries ofparochial communities content withthestatus quoandtrappedin intellectual lethargy who weredragged kickingandscreaming intoConfederation. Thisstereotype leadsto severalmisleadingconclusions. First, it encourages historians tounderestimate thedegreeofsupportwhichexisted within theMaritimesfor theidealof a largerBritishNorthAmericanunion andtoexaggerate thegulfthatdivided theanti-confederates fromthe pro-confederates. Second, it oversimplifies andtrivializes theveryreal andsubstantive objections whichmanyMaritimershadtothekindof An earlierversion of thispaperwasdelivered attheseminar on'The Causes of Canadian Confederation: Cantileveror Coincidence?' attheUniversity of Edinburgh ,9 May•988,andI amgratefultoGedMartinforasking metogive.a few'general comments' onthissubject. I amalsogratefultoanumberofcolleagues andfriendsfor agreeing tocomment onthatearlierdraft,including ErnestForbes, WilliamAcheson, DavidFrank,Ken Pryke,JackBumsted,and BrookTaylor.I hasten toaddthatnoneof themagreed witheverything I havesaid, although notwoof themdisagreed withthesame thing. E.R.Forbes, 'In Search of a Post-Confederation MaritimeHistoriography, •9oo- •967,'Acadiensis 8 (2) (autumn•978): 3-• Canadian Historical Review, •.xx•, •, 2990 0008-3755/9o/o3oo-ooo • $o•.•5/o ¸ University ofTorontoPress 2 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW unionthat theywereeventually forcedto accept.RecentAmerican historiography hasled to a substantial rethinkingof thedebatethat tookplacein theUnited States overthe ratificationof theAmerican constitution in the178os,andasimilarreassessment of thedebateover theQuebecResolutions in theMaritimesin the 186os islongoverdue. The first studiesof Confederation, in fact, devoted little time to this issue. Reginald George Trotterin Canadian Federation: ItsO,igins and Achievement (Toronto•924)barelymentions thedebateoverConfederationin the Maritimes,and M.O. Hammond in Confederation andIts Leaders (Toronto•917) simplyascribed theviews of anti-confederates such asAlbertJ.Smithtotheir'opposition tochange ofanykind'(237). In the first scholarlyarticle on 'New Brunswick's Entranceinto Confederation,' GeorgeWilsonassumed asa givenNewBrunswick's hesitancy and focusedon the factors- the loyaltycry, Canadian campaign funds,andthe'educational workofTilley'(24)- whichhe saw ascritical in persuading NewBrunswickers tovotefor union.• D.C. Harveyalsoconcentrated on theidealism of theexpansionists in his paperon 'The Maritime Provinces and Confederation' in •927.s Writingat a timewhen there wasa feelingin the Maritimesthat Confederation hadnot deliveredwhat had beenpromised?Harvey stressed thatunioncouldhavebeenaccomplished relatively easilyif the'factious' opponents offederationhadnotbeen'abletowhipup an opposition thatcaused noendoftroubletotheunionist statesmen and leftbehind alegacy ofsuspicion andill-willwhich hasbeen likeanulcer in the sideof the Dominion'(44). Harvey calledfor Maritimersto 'recapture'the initial enthusiasmof the pro-confederates and to abandon thetendency toblameConfederation for theirproblems. By implication, then,thecriticsof Confederationbothin the •86osand the•92oslackedvisionandstatesmanship. Thisperspective was alsoimplicitin WilliamMenzies Whitelaw's The Maritimes andCanada before Confederation. 5 In his preface,Whitelaw declared thathehadfocused thebookaround'thestruggle between an incipient nationalism andaruggedparticularism' (xix).The bookwas published in •934afterthecollapse of theMaritimeRights Movement andtheonset oftheGreatDepression, at a timewhenmostCanadian historians werebeginningto seethe advantages of a strongcentral government and Maritimerswere again discussing the chimeraof Canadian Historical Review (CHR) 9 (March•9•8): 4-24 Canadian Historical Association, Annual Report, •927:39-45 Theroots ofthissentiment arediscussed in E.R.Forbes, Maritime Rights: The Maritime Rights Movement, •9•9-•9•7 (Montreal•979). I have used thereprintedition, which contains a valuable introduction byPeter Waite(Toronto•966). THE MARITIMES AND CONFEDERATION 3 Maritime Union.Not surprisingly, Whitelaw approached thetopic withastrong bias infavourofConfederation andpreferably ahighly centralized federalsystem. Fromthebeginning theemphasis of the book was on the relative backwardness of the Maritimes and the persistence thereof 'earlyparticularism,' thetitleof oneof thefirst chapters. Whitelaw endedhisstudy in 1864withaninsightful chapter on 'Maritime Interestsat Quebec,'whichshowedhowthe Canadians manipulated theQuebec Conference andoutmanoeuvred thedivided Maritimers. 6Interestingly, hedidnotdiscuss theactual debate over the QuebecResolutions but concluded with a brief lamentover the decision to abandon Maritime Union. In his review of the book in the Canadian Historical Review,ChesterMartin with somejustification declared that Whitelaw'leaves an impression not onlyof "particularism "but of parochialism: of particularism run to seed,tooinert to defendor evento discerntheir own interestsin the presence of the expansive forces thenabroadin CanadaandtheUnitedStates. '7 In the •94os,A.G.Baileycontributed twoimportantarticles tothe smallcorpusof seriousscholarlyliterature on the Maritimesand Confederation. 8 In 'Railways andtheConfederation Issue in New Brunswick,•863-•865,' he focusedrather narrowlyon the debate overthe westernextension, whichhe arguedwasthe 'mostpotent' factorbehindtheopposition toConfederation inthecolony (9•).oThe problem withexplaining thedebate inNewBrunswick inthese termsis thatmanypro-confederates wantedthe western extension, nota few anti-confederates wantedthe Intercolonial,and a large numberof 6Whitelaw p•)inted out that there was only one recorded vote atQuebec...

pdf

Share